SpringerOpen Newsletter

Receive periodic news and updates relating to SpringerOpen.

Open Access Research

Duality in nondifferentiable minimax fractional programming with B-(p, r)-invexity

Izhar Ahmad12*, SK Gupta3, N Kailey4 and Ravi P Agarwal15

Author Affiliations

1 Department of Mathematics and Statistics, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia

2 Department of Mathematics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh-202 002, India

3 Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology Patna, Patna-800 013, India

4 School of Mathematics and Computer Applications, Thapar University, Patiala-147 004, India

5 Department of Mathematics, Texas A & M University - Kingsville, 700 University Blvd. Kingsville, TX 78363-8202, USA

For all author emails, please log on.

Journal of Inequalities and Applications 2011, 2011:75  doi:10.1186/1029-242X-2011-75

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.journalofinequalitiesandapplications.com/content/2011/1/75


Received:6 November 2010
Accepted:30 September 2011
Published:30 September 2011

© 2011 Ahmad et al; licensee Springer.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

In this article, we are concerned with a nondifferentiable minimax fractional programming problem. We derive the sufficient condition for an optimal solution to the problem and then establish weak, strong, and strict converse duality theorems for the problem and its dual problem under B-(p, r)-invexity assumptions. Examples are given to show that B-(p, r)-invex functions are generalization of (p, r)-invex and convex functions

AMS Subject Classification: 90C32; 90C46; 49J35.

Keywords:
nondifferentiable fractional programming; optimality conditions; B-(p, r)-invex function; duality theorems

1 Introduction

The mathematical programming problem in which the objective function is a ratio of two numerical functions is called a fractional programming problem. Fractional programming is used in various fields of study. Most extensively, it is used in business and economic situations, mainly in the situations of deficit of financial resources. Fractional programming problems have arisen in multiobjective programming [1,2], game theory [3], and goal programming [4]. Problems of these type have been the subject of immense interest in the past few years.

The necessary and sufficient conditions for generalized minimax programming were first developed by Schmitendorf [5]. Tanimoto [6] applied these optimality conditions to define a dual problem and derived duality theorems. Bector and Bhatia [7] relaxed the convexity assumptions in the sufficient optimality condition in [5] and also employed the optimality conditions to construct several dual models which involve pseudo-convex and quasi-convex functions, and derived weak and strong duality theorems. Yadav and Mukhrjee [8] established the optimality conditions to construct the two dual problems and derived duality theorems for differentiable fractional minimax programming. Chandra and Kumar [9] pointed out that the formulation of Yadav and Mukhrjee [8] has some omissions and inconsistencies and they constructed two modified dual problems and proved duality theorems for differentiable fractional minimax programming.

Lai et al. [10] established necessary and sufficient optimality conditions for non-differentiable minimax fractional problem with generalized convexity and applied these optimality conditions to construct a parametric dual model and also discussed duality theorems. Lai and Lee [11] obtained duality theorems for two parameter-free dual models of nondifferentiable minimax fractional problem involving generalized convexity assumptions.

Convexity plays an important role in deriving sufficient conditions and duality for nonlinear programming problems. Hanson [12] introduced the concept of invexity and established Karush-Kuhn-Tucker type sufficient optimality conditions for nonlinear programming problems. These functions were named invex by Craven [13]. Generalized invexity and duality for multiobjective programming problems are discussed in [14], and inseparable Hilbert spaces are studied by Soleimani-damaneh [15]. Soleimani-damaneh [16] provides a family of linear infinite problems or linear semi-infinite problems to characterize the optimality of nonlinear optimization problems. Recently, Antczak [17] proved optimality conditions for a class of generalized fractional minimax programming problems involving B-(p, r)-invexity functions and established duality theorems for various duality models.

In this article, we are motivated by Lai et al. [10], Lai and Lee [11], and Antczak [17] to discuss sufficient optimality conditions and duality theorems for a nondifferentiable minimax fractional programming problem with B-(p, r)-invexity. This article is organized as follows: In Section 2, we give some preliminaries. An example which is B-(1, 1)-invex but not (p, r)-invex is exemplified. We also illustrate another example which (-1, 1)-invex but convex. In Section 3, we establish the sufficient optimality conditions. Duality results are presented in Section 4.

2 Notations and prelominaries

Definition 1. Let f : X R (where X Rn) be differentiable function, and let p, r be arbitrary real numbers. Then f is said to be (p, r)-invex (strictly (p, r)-invex) with respect to η at u X on X if there exists a function η : X × X Rn such that, for all x X, the inequalities

1 r e r ( f ( x ) 1 r e r ( f ( u ) [ 1 + r p f ( u ) ( e p η ( x , u ) 1 ) ] ( > if  x u ) for p 0, r 0, 1 r e r ( f ( x ) 1 r e r ( f ( u ) [ 1 + r f ( u ) ( e p η ( x , u ) 1 ) ] ( > if x u ) for p = 0, r 0, f ( x ) f ( u ) 1 p f ( u ) ( e p η ( x , u ) 1 ) ( > if  x u ) for  p 0, r = 0, f ( x ) f ( u ) f ( u ) η ( x , u ) ( > if  x u ) for  p = 0, r = 0,

hold.

Definition 2 [17]. The differentiable function f : X R (where X Rn) is said to be (strictly) B-(p, r)-invex with respect to η and b at u X on X if there exists a function η : X × X Rn and a function b : X × X R+ such that, for all x X, the following inequalities

1 r b ( x , u ) ( e r ( f ( x ) - f ( u ) ) - 1 ) 1 p f ( u ) ( e p η ( x , u ) - 1 ) ( > if  x u ) for  p 0 , r 0 , 1 r b ( x , u ) ( e r ( f ( x ) - f ( u ) ) - 1 ) f ( u ) η ( x , u ) ( > if x u ) for p = 0 , r 0 , b ( x , u ) ( f ( x ) - f ( u ) ) 1 p f ( u ) ( e p η ( x , u ) - 1 ) ( > if x u ) for  p 0 , r = 0 , b ( x , u ) ( f ( x ) - f ( u ) ) f ( u ) η ( x , u ) ( > if x u ) for  p = 0 , r = 0 ,

hold. f is said to be (strictly) B-(p, r)-invex with respect to η and b on X if it is B-(p, r)-invex with respect to same η and b at each u X on X.

Remark 1 [17]. It should be pointed out that the exponentials appearing on the right-hand sides of the inequalities above are understood to be taken componentwise and 1 = (1, 1, ..., 1) ∈ Rn.

Example 1. Let X = [8.75, 9.15] ⊂ R. Consider the function f : X R defined by

f ( x ) = log ( sin 2 x ) .

Let η : X × X R be given by

η ( x , u ) = 1 2 ( 1 + u ) .

To prove that f is (-1, 1)-invex, we have to show that

1 r e r f ( x ) - 1 r e r f ( u ) 1 + r p f ( u ) e p η ( x , u ) - 1 0 , for p = - 1 and r = 1 .

Now, consider

φ = e f ( x ) - e f ( u ) 1 - f ( u ) e - η ( x , u ) - 1 = sin 2 x + sin 2 u e - 1 2 ( 1 + u ) - 1 - sin 2 u 0 x , u X ,

as can be seen form Figure 1.

thumbnailFigure 1. φ = sin2x + sin 2u(e-12(1+u) - 1) - sin2u.

Hence, f is (-1, 1)-invex.

Further, for x = 8.8 and u = 9.1, we have

ϑ = f ( x ) - f ( u ) - ( x - u ) T f ( u ) = 2 log sin x sin u - ( x - u ) sin 2 u sin 2 u = - 0 . 5 7 0 0 5 7 2 2 5 < 0

Thus f is not convex function on X.

Example 2. Let X = [0.25, 0.45] ⊂ R. Consider the function f : X R defined by

f ( x ) = - x 2 + log ( 8 x ) .

Let η : X × X R and b : X × X R+ be given by

η ( x , u ) = log ( 1 + 2 u 2 )

and

b ( x , u ) = 4 sin 2 x + sin 2 u ,

respectively.

The function f defined above is B-(1, 1)-invex as

ϕ = b ( x , u ) ( e ( f ( x ) - f ( u ) ) - 1 ) - f ( u ) ( e η ( x , u ) - 1 ) = 4 sin 2 x + sin 2 u e ( u 2 - x 2 ) x u - 1 - u - 4 u 3 0 x , u X ,

as can be seen from Figure 2.

thumbnailFigure 2. ϕ = 4 sin 2 x + sin 2 u e ( u 2 - x 2 ) x u - 1 - u - 4 u 3 .

However, it is not (p, r) invex for all p, r ∈ (-1017, 1017) as

ψ = 1 r e r f ( x ) - 1 r e r f ( u ) 1 + r p f ( u ) ( e p η ( x , u ) - 1 ) = 1 r e 1 . 4 6 1 2 9 6 1 7 6 × r - 1 r e 1 . 4 6 9 2 9 1 2 5 8 × r 1 + 0 . 4 5 × r p e 0 . 3 0 2 1 7 6 5 1 8 6 × p - 1

(for x = 0.4 and u = 0.42)

< 0 as can be seen from Figure 3.

thumbnailFigure 3. ψ = 1 r e 1 . 4 6 1 2 9 6 1 7 6 × r - 1 r e 1 . 4 6 9 2 9 1 2 5 8 × r 1 + 0 . 4 5 × r p e 0 . 3 0 2 1 7 6 5 1 8 6 × p - 1 .

Hence f is B-(1, 1)-invex but not (p, r)-invex.

In this article, we consider the following nondifferentiable minimax fractional programming problem:

(FP)

min x R n sup y Y l ( x , y ) + ( x T D x ) 1 2 m ( x , y ) - ( x T E x ) 1 2 subject to  g ( x ) 0 , x X

where Y is a compact subset of Rm, l(., .): Rn × Rm R, m(., .): Rn × Rm R, are C1 functions on Rn × Rm and g(.): Rn Rp is C1 function on Rn. D and E are n × n positive semidefinite matrices.

Let S = {x X : g(x) ≤ 0} denote the set of all feasible solutions of (FP).

Any point x S is called the feasible point of (FP). For each (x, y) ∈ Rn × Rm, we define

ϕ ( x , y ) = l ( x , y ) + ( x T D x ) 1 2 m ( x , y ) - ( x T E x ) 1 2 ,

such that for each (x, y) ∈ S × Y,

l ( x , y ) + ( x T D x ) 1 2 0 and  m ( x , y ) - ( x T E x ) 1 2 > 0 .

For each x S, we define

H ( x ) = { h H : g h ( x ) = 0 } ,

where

H = { 1 , 2 , , p } , Y ( x ) = y Y : l ( x , y ) + ( x T D x ) 1 2 m ( x , y ) - ( x T E x ) 1 2 = sup z Y l ( x , z ) + ( x T D x ) 1 2 m ( x , z ) - ( x T E x ) 1 2 . K ( x ) = ( s , t , ) N × R + s × R ms : 1 s n + 1 , t = ( t 1 , t 2 , , t s ) R + s

with i = 1 s t i = 1 , = ( ȳ 1 , ȳ 2 , , ȳ s ) with ȳ i Y ( x ) ( i = 1 , 2 , , s ) .

Since l and m are continuously differentiable and Y is compact in Rm, it follows that for each x* ∈ S, Y (x*) ≠ ∅, and for any ȳ i Y ( x * ) , we have a positive constant

k = ϕ ( x * , ȳ i ) = l ( x * , ȳ i ) + ( x * T D x * ) 1 2 m ( x * , ȳ i ) - ( x * T E x * ) 1 2 .

2.1 Generalized Schwartz inequality

Let A be a positive-semidefinite matrix of order n. Then, for all, x, w Rn,

x T A w ( x T A x ) 1 2 ( w T A w ) 1 2 . (1)

Equality holds if for some λ ≥ 0,

A x = λ A w .

Evidently, if ( w T A w ) 1 2 1 , we have

x T A w ( x T A x ) 1 2 .

If the functions l, g, and m in problem (FP) are continuously differentiable with respect to x Rn, then Lai et al. [10] derived the following necessary conditions for optimality of (FP).

Theorem 1 (Necessary conditions). If x* is a solution of (FP) satisfying x*TDx* >0, x*TEx* > 0, and ∇gh(x*), h H(x*) are linearly independent, then there exist ( s , t * , ȳ ) K ( x * ) , ko R+, w, v Rn and μ * R + p such that

i = 1 s t i * l ( x * , ȳ i ) + D w - k ( m ( x * , ȳ i ) - E v ) + h = 1 p μ h * g h ( x * ) = 0 , (2)

l ( x * , ȳ i ) + ( x * T D x * ) 1 2 - k m ( x * , ȳ i ) - ( x * T E x * ) 1 2 = 0 , i = 1 , 2 , , s , (3)

h = 1 p μ h * g h ( x * ) = 0 , (4)

t i * 0 ( i = 1 , 2 , , s ) , i = 1 s t i * = 1 , (5)

w T D w 1 , v T E v 1 , ( x * T D x * ) 1 2 = x * T D w , ( x * T E x * ) 1 2 = x * T E v . (6)

Remark 2. All the theorems in this article will be proved only in the case when p ≠ 0, r ≠ 0. The proofs in the other cases are easier than in this one. It follows from the form of inequalities which are given in Definition 2. Moreover, without limiting the generality considerations, we shall assume that r > 0.

3 Sufficient conditions

Under smooth conditions, say, convexity and generalized convexity as well as differentiability, optimality conditions for these problems have been studied in the past few years. The intrinsic presence of nonsmoothness (the necessity to deal with nondifferentiable functions, sets with nonsmooth boundaries, and set-valued mappings) is one of the most characteristic features of modern variational analysis (see [18,19]). Recently, nonsmooth optimizations have been studied by some authors [20-23]. The optimality conditions for approximate solutions in multiobjective optimization problems have been studied by Gao et al. [24] and for nondifferentiable multiobjective case by Kim et al. [25]. Now, we prove the sufficient condition for optimality of (FP) under the assumptions of B-(p, r)-invexity.

Theorem 2 (Sufficient condition). Let x* be a feasible solution of (FP) and there exist a positive integer s, 1 ≤ s n + 1, t * R + s , ȳ i Y ( x * ) ( i = 1 , 2 , s ) , ko R+, w, v Rn and μ * R + p satisfying the relations (2)-(6). Assume that

(i) i = 1 s t i * ( l ( . , ȳ i ) + ( . ) T D w - k ( m ( . , ȳ i ) - ( . ) T E v ) ) is B-(p, r)-invex at x* on S with respect to η and b satisfying b(x, x*) > 0 for all x S,

(ii) h = 1 p μ h * g h ( . ) is Bg-(p, r)-invex at x* on S with respect to the same function η, and with respect to the function bg, not necessarily, equal to b.

Then x* is an optimal solution of (FP).

Proof. Suppose to the contrary that x* is not an optimal solution of (FP). Then there exists an x ̄ S such that

sup y Y l ( x ̄ , y ) + ( x ̄ T D x ̄ ) 1 2 m ( x ̄ , y ) - ( x ̄ T E x ̄ ) 1 2 < sup y Y l ( x * , y ) + ( x * T D x * ) 1 2 m ( x * , y ) - ( x * T E x * ) 1 2 .

We note that

sup y Y l ( x * , y ) + ( x * T D x * ) 1 2 m ( x * , y ) - ( x * T E x * ) 1 2 = l ( x * , ȳ i ) + ( x * T D x * ) 1 2 m ( x * , ȳ i ) - ( x * T E x * ) 1 2 = k ,

for ȳ i Y ( x * ) , i = 1, 2, ..., s and

l ( x ̄ , ȳ i ) + ( x ̄ T D x ̄ ) 1 2 m ( x ̄ , ȳ i ) - ( x ̄ T E x ̄ ) 1 2 sup y Y l ( x ̄ , y ) + ( x ̄ T D x ̄ ) 1 2 m ( x ̄ , y ) - ( x ̄ T E x ̄ ) 1 2 .

Thus, we have

l ( x ̄ , ȳ i ) + ( x ̄ T D x ̄ ) 1 2 m ( x ̄ , ȳ i ) - ( x ̄ T E x ̄ ) 1 2 < k ,  for i = 1 , 2 , . . . , s .

It follows that

l ( x ̄ , ȳ i ) + ( x ̄ T D x ̄ ) 1 2 - k ( m ( x ̄ , ȳ i ) - ( x ̄ T E x ̄ ) 1 2 ) < 0 ,  for i = 1 , 2 , . . . , s . (7)

From (1), (3), (5), (6) and (7), we obtain

i = 1 s t i * { l ( x ̄ , ȳ i ) + x ̄ T D w - k ( m ( x ̄ , ȳ i ) - x ̄ T E v ) } i = 1 s t i * { l ( x ̄ , ȳ i ) + ( x ̄ T D x ̄ ) 1 2 - k ( m ( x ̄ , ȳ i ) - ( x ̄ T E x ̄ ) 1 2 ) } < 0 = i = 1 s t i * { l ( x * , ȳ i ) + ( x * T D x * ) 1 2 - k ( m ( x * , ȳ i ) - ( x * T E x * ) 1 2 ) } = i = 1 s t i * { l ( x * , ȳ i ) + x * T D w - k ( m ( x * , ȳ i ) - x * T E v ) } .

It follows that

i = 1 s t i * { l ( x ̄ , ȳ i ) + x ̄ T D w - k ( m ( x ̄ , ȳ i ) - x ̄ T E v ) } < i = 1 s t i * { l ( x * , ȳ i ) + x * T D w - k ( m ( x * , ȳ i ) - x * T E v ) } . (8)

As i = 1 s t i * ( l ( . , ȳ i ) + ( . ) T D w - k ( m ( . , ȳ i ) - ( . ) T E v ) ) is B-(p, r)-invex at x* on S with respect to η and b, we have

1 r b ( x , x * ) e r i = 1 s t i * ( l ( x , ȳ i ) + x T D w - k ( m ( x , ȳ i ) - x T E v ) ) - i = 1 s t i * ( l ( x * , ȳ i ) + x * T D w - k ( m ( x * , ȳ i ) - x * T E v ) ) - 1 1 p i = 1 s t i * ( l ( x * , ȳ i ) + D w - k ( m ( x * , ȳ i ) - E v ) ) { e p η ( x , x * ) - 1 }

holds for all x S, and so for x = x ̄ . Using (8) and b ( x ̄ , x * ) > 0 together with the inequality above, we get

1 p i = 1 s t i * ( l ( x * , ȳ i ) + D w - k ( m ( x * , ȳ i ) - E v ) ) { e p η ( x ̄ , x * ) - 1 } < 0 . (9)

From the feasibility of x ̄ together with μ h * 0 , h H, we have

h = 1 p μ h * g h ( x ̄ ) 0 . (10)

By Bg-(p, r)-invexity of h = 1 p μ h * g h ( . ) at x* on S with respect to the same function η, and with respect to the function bg, we have

1 r b g ( x ̄ , x * ) e r h = 1 p μ h * g h ( x ̄ ) - h = 1 p μ h * g h ( x * ) - 1 1 p h = 1 p μ h * g h ( x * ) e p η ( x ̄ , x * ) - 1 .

Since bg(x, x*) ≥ 0 for all x S then by (4) and (10), we obtain

1 p h = 1 p μ h * g h ( x * ) { e p η ( x ̄ , x * ) - 1 } 0 . (11)

By adding the inequalities (9) and (11), we have

1 p i = 1 s t i * ( l ( x * , ȳ i ) + D w - k ( m ( x * , ȳ i ) - E v ) ) + h = 1 p μ h * g h ( x * ) { e p η ( x ̄ , x * ) - 1 } < 0 ,

which contradicts (2). Hence the result.   □

4 Duality results

In this section, we consider the following dual to (FP):

( F D ) max ( s , t , ȳ ) K ( a ) sup ( a , μ , k , v , w ) H 1 ( s , t , ȳ ) k ,

where H 1 ( s , t , ȳ ) denotes the set of all ( a , μ , k , v , w ) R n × R + p × R + × R n × R n satisfying

i = 1 s t i { l ( a , ȳ i ) + D w - k ( m ( a , ȳ i ) - E v ) } + h = 1 p μ h g h ( a ) = 0 , (12)

i = 1 s t i { l ( a , ȳ i ) + a T D w - k ( m ( a , ȳ i ) - a T E v ) } 0 , (13)

h = 1 p μ h g h ( a ) 0 , (14)

( s , t , ȳ ) K ( a ) , (15)

w T D w 1 , v T E v 1 . (16)

If, for a triplet ( s , t , ȳ ) K ( a ) , the set H 1 ( s , t , ȳ ) = , then we define the supremum over it to be -∞. For convenience, we let

ψ 1 ( . ) = i = 1 s t i { l ( . , ȳ i ) + ( . ) T D w - k ( m ( . , ȳ i ) - ( . ) T E v ) } .

Let SFD denote a set of all feasible solutions for problem (FD). Moreover, let S1 denote

S 1 = { a R n : ( a , μ , k , v , w , s , t , ȳ ) S FD } .

Now we derive the following weak, strong, and strict converse duality theorems.

Theorem 3 (Weak duality). Let x be a feasible solution of (P) and ( a , μ , k , v , w , s , t , ȳ ) be a feasible of (FD). Let

(i) i = 1 s t i ( l ( . , ȳ i ) + ( . ) T D w - k ( m ( . , ȳ i ) - ( . ) T E v ) ) is B-(p, r)-invex at a on S S1 with respect to η and b satisfying b(x, a) > 0,

(ii) h = 1 p μ h g h ( . ) is Bg-(p, r)-invex at a on S S1 with respect to the same function η and with respect to the function bg, not necessarily, equal to b.

Then,

sup y Y l ( x , y ) + ( x T D x ) 1 2 m ( x , y ) - ( x T E x ) 1 2 k . (17)

Proof. Suppose to the contrary that

sup y Y l ( x , y ) + ( x T D x ) 1 2 m ( x , y ) - ( x T E x ) 1 2 < k .

Then, we have

l ( x , ȳ i ) + ( x T D x ) 1 2 - k ( m ( x , ȳ i ) - ( x T E x ) 1 2 ) < 0 , for all ȳ i Y .

It follows from (5) that

t i { l ( x , y ¯ i ) + ( x T D x ) 1 / 2 k ( m ( x , y ¯ i ) ( x T E x ) 1 / 2 } 0, (18)

with at least one strict inequality, since t = (t1, t2, ..., ts) ≠ 0.

From (1), (13), (16) and (18), we have

ψ 1 ( x ) = i = 1 s t i { l ( x , ȳ i ) + x T D w - k ( m ( x , ȳ i ) - x T E v ) } i = 1 s t i { l ( x , ȳ i ) + ( x T D x ) 1 2 - k ( m ( x , ȳ i ) - ( x T E x ) 1 2 ) } < 0 i = 1 s t i { l ( a , ȳ i ) + a T D w - k ( m ( a , ȳ i ) - a T E v ) } = ψ 1 ( a ) .

Hence

ψ 1 ( x ) < ψ 1 ( a ) . (19)

Since i = 1 s t i ( l ( . , ȳ i ) + ( . ) T D w - k ( m ( . , ȳ i ) - ( . ) T E v ) ) is B-(p, r)-invex at a on S S1 with respect to η and b, we have

1 r b ( x , a ) e r i = 1 s t i ( l ( x , ȳ i ) + x T D w - k ( m ( x , ȳ i ) - x T E v ) ) - i = 1 s t i ( l ( a , ȳ i ) + a T D w - k ( m ( a , ȳ i ) - a T E v ) ) - 1 1 p i = 1 s t i ( l ( a , ȳ i ) + D w - k ( m ( a , ȳ i ) - E v ) ) { e p η ( x , a ) - 1 } .

From (19) and b(x, a) > 0 together with the inequality above, we get

1 p i = 1 s t i ( l ( a , ȳ i ) + D w - k ( m ( a , ȳ i ) - E v ) ) { e p η ( x , a ) - 1 } < 0 . (20)

Using the feasibility of x together with μh ≥ 0, h H, we obtain

h = 1 p μ h g h ( x ) 0 . (21)

From hypothesis (ii), we have

1 r b g ( x , a ) e r h = 1 p μ h g h ( x ) - h = 1 p μ h g h ( a ) - 1 1 p h = 1 p μ h g h ( a ) { e p η ( x , a ) - 1 } .

As bg(x, a) ≥ 0 then by (14) and (21), we obtain

1 p h = 1 p μ h g h ( a ) { e p η ( x , a ) - 1 } 0 . (22)

Thus, by (20) and (22), we obtain the inequality

1 p i = 1 s t i ( l ( a , ȳ i ) + D w - k ( m ( a , ȳ i ) - E v ) ) + h = 1 p μ h g h ( a ) { e p η ( x , a ) - 1 } < 0 ,

which contradicts (12). Hence (17) holds.   □

Theorem 4 (Strong duality). Let x* be an optimal solution of (FP) and ∇gh(x*), h H(x*) is linearly independent. Then there exist ( s ̄ , t ̄ , ȳ * ) K ( x * ) and ( x * , μ ̄ , k ̄ , v ̄ , w ̄ ) H 1 ( s ̄ , t ̄ , ȳ * ) such that ( x * , μ ̄ , k ̄ , v ̄ , w ̄ , s ̄ , t ̄ , ȳ * ) is a feasible solution of (FD). Further, if the hypotheses of weak duality theorem are satisfied for all feasible solutions ( a , μ , k , v , w , s , t , ȳ ) of (FD), then ( x * , μ ̄ , k ̄ , v ̄ , w ̄ , s ̄ , t ̄ , ȳ * ) is an optimal solution of (FD), and the two objectives have the same optimal values.

Proof. If x* be an optimal solution of (FP) and ∇gh(x*), h H(x*) is linearly independent, then by Theorem 1, there exist ( s ̄ , t ̄ , ȳ * ) K ( x * ) and ( x * , μ ̄ , k ̄ , v ̄ , w ̄ ) H 1 ( s ̄ , t ̄ , ȳ * ) such that ( x * , μ ̄ , k ̄ , v ̄ , w ̄ , s ̄ , t ̄ , ȳ * ) is feasible for (FD) and problems (FP) and (FD) have the same objective values and

k ̄ = l ( x * , ȳ i * ) + ( x * T D x * ) 1 2 m ( x * , ȳ i * ) - ( x * T E x * ) 1 2 .

The optimality of this feasible solution for (FD) thus follows from Theorem 3.   □

Theorem 5 (Strict converse duality). Let x* and ( ā , μ ̄ , k ̄ , v ̄ , w ̄ , s ̄ , t ̄ , ȳ * ) be the optimal solutions of (FP) and (FD), respectively, and ∇gh(x*), h H(x*) is linearly independent. Suppose that i = 1 s t i ( l ( . , ȳ i ) + ( . ) T D w - k ̄ ( m ( . , ȳ i ) - ( . ) T E v ) ) is strictly B-(p, r)-invex at a on S S1 with respect to η and b satisfying b(x, a) > 0 for all x S. Furthermore, assume that h = 1 p μ h g h ( . ) is Bg-(p, r)-invex at a on S S1 with respect to the same function η and with respect to the function bg, but not necessarily, equal to the function b. Then x * = ā , that is, ā is an optimal point in (FP) and

sup y Y l ( ā , ȳ * ) + ( ā T D ā ) 1 2 m ( ā , ȳ * ) - ( ā T E ā ) 1 2 = k ̄ .

Proof. We shall assume that x * ā and reach a contradiction. From the strong duality theorem (Theorem 4), it follows that

sup y Y l ( x * , ȳ * ) + ( x * T D x * ) 1 2 m ( x * , ȳ * ) - ( x * T E x * ) 1 2 = k ̄ . (23)

By feasibility of x* together with μh ≥ 0, h H, we obtain

h = 1 p μ h g h ( x * ) 0 . (24)

By assumption, h = 1 p μ h g h ( . ) is Bg-(p, r)-invex at a on S S1 with respect to η and with respect to the bg. Then, by Definition 2, there exists a function bg such that bg(x, a) ≥ 0 for all x S and a S1. Hence by (14) and (24),

1 r b g ( x * , ā ) e r h = 1 p μ h g h ( x * ) - h = 1 p μ h g h ( ā ) - 1 0 .

Then, from Definition 2, we get

1 p h = 1 p μ h g h ( ā ) { e p η ( x * , ā ) - 1 } 0 . (25)

Therefore, by (25), we obtain the inequality

1 p i = 1 s t i ( l ( ā , ȳ i ) + D w - k ̄ ( m ( ā , ȳ i ) - E v ) ) { e p η ( x * , ā ) - 1 } 0 .

As i = 1 s t i ( l ( . , ȳ i ) + ( . ) T D w - k ̄ ( m ( . , ȳ i ) - ( . ) T E v ) ) is strictly B-(p, r)-invex with respect to η and b at ā on S S1. Then, by the Definition of strictly B-(p, r)-invexity and from above inequality, it follows that

1 r b ( x * , ā ) × e r i = 1 s t i ( l ( x * , ȳ i ) + x * T D w - k ̄ ( m ( x * , ȳ i ) - x * T E v ) ) - i = 1 s t i ( l ( ā , ȳ i ) + ā T D w - k ̄ ( m ( ā , ȳ i ) - ā T E v ) ) - 1 > 0 .

From the hypothesis b ( x * , ā ) > 0 , and the above inequality, we get

i = 1 s t i ( l ( x * , ȳ i ) + x * T D w - k ̄ ( m ( x * , ȳ i ) - x * T E v ) ) - i = 1 s t i ( l ( ā , ȳ i ) + ā T D w - k ̄ ( m ( ā , ȳ i ) - ā T E v ) ) > 0 .

Therefore, by (13),

i = 1 s t i ( l ( x * , ȳ i ) + x * T D w - k ̄ ( m ( x * , ȳ i ) - x * T E v ) ) > 0 .

Since ti ≥ 0, i = 1, 2, ..., s, therefore there exists i* such that

l ( x * , ȳ i * ) + x * T D w - k ̄ ( m ( x * , ȳ i * ) - x * T E v ) > 0 .

Hence, we obtain the following inequality

l ( x * , ȳ i * ) + ( x * T D x * ) 1 2 m ( x * , ȳ i * ) - ( x * T E x * ) 1 2 > k ̄ ,

which contradicts (23). Hence the results.   □

5 Concluding remarks

It is not clear that whether duality in nondifferentiable minimax fractional programming with B-(p, r)-invexity can be further extended to second-order case.

6 Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

7 Authors' contributions

All authors contributed equally and significantly in writing this paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Izhar Ahmad thanks the King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals for the support under the Fast Track Project no. FT100023. Ravi P. Agarwal gratefully acknowledges the support provided by the King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals to carry out this research. The authors wish to thank the referees for their several valuable suggestions which have considerably improved the presentation of this article.

References

  1. Gulati, TR, Ahmad, I: Efficiency and duality in multiobjective fractional programming. Opsearch. 32, 31–43 (1990)

  2. Weir, T: A dual for multiobjective fractional programming. J Inf Optim Sci. 7, 261–269 (1986)

  3. Chandra, S, Craven, BD, Mond, B: Generalized fractional programming duality: a ratio game approach. J Aust Math Soc B. 28, 170–180 (1986). Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  4. Charnes, A, Cooper, WW: Goal programming and multiobjective optimization, Part I. Eur J Oper Res. 1, 39–54 (1977). Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  5. Schmitendorf, WE: Necessary conditions and sufficient optimality conditions for static minimax problems. J Math Anal Appl. 57, 683–693 (1977). Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  6. Tanimoto, S: Duality for a class of nondifferentiable mathematical programming problems. J Math Anal Appl. 79, 283–294 (1981)

  7. Bector, CR, Bhatia, BL: Sufficient optimality and duality for a minimax problems. Utilitas Mathematica. 27, 229–247 (1985)

  8. Yadav, SR, Mukherjee, RN: Duality for fractional minimax programming problems. J Aust Math Soc B. 31, 484–492 (1990). Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  9. Chandra, S, Kumar, V: Duality in fractional minimax programming. J Aust Math Soc A. 58, 376–386 (1995). Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  10. Lai, HC, Liu, JC, Tanaka, K: Necessary and sufficient conditions for minimax fractional programming. J Math Anal Appl. 230, 311–328 (1999). Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  11. Lai, HC, Lee, JC: On duality theorems for a nondifferentiable minimax fractional programming. J Comput Appl Math. 146, 115–126 (2002). Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  12. Hanson, MA: On sufficiency of the Kuhn-Tucker conditions. J Math Anal Appl. 80, 545–550 (1981). Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  13. Craven, BD: Invex functions and constrained local minima. Bull Aust Math Soc. 24, 357–366 (1981). Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  14. Aghezzaf, B, Hachimi, M: Generalized invexity and duality in multiobjective programming problems. J Global Optim. 18, 91–101 (2000). Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  15. Soleimani-damaneh, M: Generalized invexity in separable Hilbert spaces. Topology. 48, 66–79 (2009). Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  16. Soleimani-damaneh, M: Infinite (semi-infinite) problems to characterize the optimality of nonlinear optimization problems. Eur J Oper Res. 188, 49–56 (2008). Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  17. Antczak, T: Generalized fractional minimax programming with B-(p, r)-invexity. Comput Math Appl. 56, 1505–1525 (2008). Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  18. Mordukhovich, BS: Variational Analysis and Generalized Differentiation, I: Basic Theory. Springer, Grundlehren Series (Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences) (2006)

  19. Mordukhovich, BS: Variations Analysis and Generalized Differentiation, II: Applications. Springer, Grundlehren Series (Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences) (2006)

  20. Agarwal, RP, Ahmad, I, Husain, Z, Jayswal, A: Optimality and duality in nonsmooth multiobjective optimization involving V-type I invex functions. J Inequal Appl. 2010, Article ID 898626 14 (2010)

  21. Kim, DS, Lee, HJ: Optimality conditions and duality in nonsmooth multiobjective programs. J Inequal Appl. 2010, Article ID 939537 12 (2010)

  22. Soleimani-damaneh, M: Nonsmooth optimization using Mordukhovich's subdifferential. SIAM J Control Optim. 48, 3403–3432 (2010). Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  23. Soleimani-damaneh, M, Nieto, JJ: Nonsmooth multiple-objective optimization in separable Hilbert spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 71, 4553–4558 (2009). Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  24. Gao, Y, Yang, X, Lee, HWJ: Optimality conditions for approximate solutions in multiobjective optimization problems. J Inequal Appl. 2010, Article ID 620928 17 (2010)

  25. Kim, HJ, Seo, YY, Kim, DS: Optimality conditions in nondifferentiable G-invex multiobjective programming. J Inequal Appl. 2010, Article ID 172059 13 (2010)